[openib-general] Conflicting typedefs for "ib_gid_t"

[Sean Hefty]

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> There are not that many "common IB types". verbs and management for example
> are more or less isolated. CM users mostly don't care about SMPs. etc.
> What's common? GID? It does not seem worth it for a "free format 16 byte network
> endianness" type.

Verbs and management are not isolated.  Establishing a connection, joining a 
multicast group, or acquiring a path record are essential for actually using 
verbs correctly.

> I don't necessary see a problem with what we have.  Such defines mirror IB spec
> so are static and there is no overhead maintaining them.  And this simplifies
> dependencies no end - think about testing tens of dependent libraries
> for breakage just 'cause you removed an used line in this
> "included by everyone" header.

Having umad_gid, ibv_gid, ibv_sa_gid, mad_gid, cm_gid, 
some_other_random_library_gid is goofy.  (Sorry, I'm completely ranting now.)

> Hmm. User might not have uverbs even loaded, so adding verbs as a dependency
> to e.g. SM seems like a bad idea.

We only need the include file, not the library.

> opensm really tries to be stack-agnostic, so it does need its own
> layer for things.

Then those things should be completely internal to opensm.

- Sean